After posting the original email, I started wondering if that's the issue, the fact that we store timestamp up to the millisecond rather than a more reasonable granularity. Dates are too high a granularity for us, but minutes, and possibly hours should work.
I'll report once we've tested some more. Regards, Dror On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 12:25:47PM -0500, Erik Hatcher wrote: > On Saturday, November 15, 2003, at 11:38 AM, Karsten Konrad wrote: > >If the number of different date terms causes this effect, why not > >"round" > >the date to the nearest or next midnight while indexing. Thus, > >filtering > >for the last 15 days would require walking over 15-17 different date > >terms. > >If you don't do this, the number of different terms will be the same as > >the number of documents you indexed, explaining the slowing down when > >you > >have more results. > > I wholeheartedly concur. And in fact I don't use the Keyword(String, > Date) thing at all if I just need to represent a date. I use YYYYMMDD > as a String instead. It's just too fiddly to deal with dates using the > built-in handling of it. > > Erik > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Dror Matalon Zapatec Inc 1700 MLK Way Berkeley, CA 94709 http://www.fastbuzz.com http://www.zapatec.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
